Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41787445›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2026

Evaluation of the iFalcon

Yunhao Su, Jing Jin, Hao Cheng, Ji Fu

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yunhao SuThe school of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, China.
Jing JinThe school of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, China.
Hao ChengThe school of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, China.
Ji FuThe school of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, China. fuji@zstu.edu.cn.

Funding

Zhejiang Sei-Tech University No. 24242151-Y.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement is fundamental for both clinical ophthalmology and experimental research. Study evaluated the performance of iFalconTMV100 rebound tonometer in four enucleated rabbit eyes. We employed a stepwise pressure-increasing protocol to generate a physiologically relevant IOP range (5–55 mmHg). At each target pressure, measurements were taken concurrently with the tonometer (using the rabbit-specific mode) and the reference sensor. We used linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis to assess agreement across the entire dataset, supplemented by a segmented analysis of normal and elevated IOP ranges. Overall linear regression revealed a strong correlation between the iFalconTMV100 Vet and the reference sensor(R² = 0.9712, p < 0.001); however, interval-dependent bias was present. The positive intercept (0.8951) suggested a tendency for the tonometer to overestimate IOP at low measurement range, while slope < 1 suggested systematic underestimation at higher pressures. Bland-Altman analysis further confirmed this systematic underestimation bias at central corneal position. The iFalconTMV100 rebound tonometer showed strong agreement with direct sensor measurements across a broad pressure range (5–55 mmHg) in an ex vivo rabbit model, supporting its potential utility for IOP assessment in this setting, with limitations noted in extreme pressure ranges.

Indexed as

Intraocular PressureTonometry, OcularAnimalsRabbitsEx vivoImplantable pressure sensorIntraocular pressureRebound tonometryTonometry accuracy

Identifiers

PMID41787445
PMCPMC13072589

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.